#tipsfornewlawyers

Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” – Matthew 7:15

It might seem a little melodramatic to start a business development related post off with a biblical reference, but when the global leader of EY Law, Cornelius Grossman, says “I don’t think any firm should feel threatened“, vis-à-vis the march of accounting firms into the legal space, and particularly why law firms have nothing to fear from accountants practising law, it seems entirely appropriate.

On further reading, the firms Grossman says he is refusing to target – and thus by extension don’t need to feel threatened by the continued march of accountants into this space – are those doing “the highest level – “bet the company” – work and premier corporate clients” and who “have established their brands over hundreds of years…”

In other words, so-called Magic Circle firms, their work and client base are safe from the invasion.

But, as Grossman then goes on to say in this legalweek.com article:

“he believes EY Law will succeed with multi-disciplinary teams doing mid-market transactional work”.

adding further that:

“We [EY Law] want to be known for compliance jobs that span over tens of jurisdictions and for large international reorgansiations.”

In other words, the work that just about 80 per cent of us have been trying very hard to secure for a couple of decades now (and in many case incurring significant losses while we try and secure this work)!

So, while Grossman may believe that:

“The threat of accounting firms to the legal market is overstated.”

and that:

“There’s so much work out there that we all compete for – I don’t think any firm in particular should feel threatened by that.”

unless you work for an elite law firm, I would like to suggest that you be a tad weary of wolves in sheep’s clothing telling you that there really is nothing to be overly concerned about and that there really is enough food out there for all of us to feed on.

From the client’s perspective

Overnight (Australian time) Bruce MacEwen, President of Adam Smith, Esq and a leading commentator on professional services, wrote an outstanding blog post – ‘The Client Seat‘.

The post outlines some of the personal experiences Bruce has recently encountered as part of his role as Chair of the Finance Committee of his local church, St. Michael’s Episcopal Church at West 99th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, who own a vacant corner lot abutting the rear of the sanctuary and are looking for ways to realize some value from the asset; and, specifically, as it relates to the process of interviews the church is going through to select and engage a law firm to assist them in this process.

I anticipate there being a lot of commentary written about Bruce’s post – if there isn’t already. It raises a number of thought provoking issues of what it feels like to be sitting in the client’s seat as part of this process and some of the gems that lawyers and law firms come out with to try and impress a prospective client into appointing them to do the work – even where they may not be qualified to do the task at hand.

But what really grabbed my attention in the post was the following observation Bruce makes:

The other asymmetry is one of disclosure and, to be pointed about it, candor: The client needs to tell the firm as much as honestly possible about the engagement and what the client knows, while the lawyers’ instinct and practice is to guard information, hedge predictions, and avoid definitive statements. This is true even when the firm is posed direct questions about simple business arrangements and not ultimate outcomes, such as “Who will be working on my matter?”

This is such an on the money observation of the profession, but think about it for a second:

In an age where open candour and transparency around both your personal and your firm’s credentials will most likely win you and the firm the trust of clients and prospective clients, and thus a lot more work in the long run, why do lawyers still feel the need to be guarded and reluctant to give straight answers to straight questions?

How often do you let your clients know the value you provide to them?

Based on interviews with 188 independent lawyers and more than 500 clients, the LexisNexis Bellwether Report 2015: the Age of the Client (published earlier this week) found that:

“80% of lawyers think they’re delivering above average service…

… but only …

…40% of clients say they’re receiving it.”

What does this mean?

Well, either:

You’re not as good as you think you are; or
You’re not communicating well enough to your clients the value you bring to the transaction/relationship.

I’ll leave it for you to decide which you think applies to you.

The two types of efficiencies law firm associates need to become familiar with…

Really interesting article [‘What Associates Should Know About In-House Rates and Efficiencies‘] by Gina F. Rubel was published overnight (7 April 2015) on The Legal Intelligencer website – discussing the two types of efficiencies that law firm associates should become familiar with – contains a gem of a quote from an in-house general counsel that I wanted to share/pass on.

First, to put some context around the quote below by Gino Benedetti, as Rubel states:

“There are two types of efficiencies with which lawyers need to be familiar. The first is general efficiency, which is the state or quality of being efficient and the actions designed to achieve optimal results. The second is economic efficiency, which requires optimal production and distribution of a firm’s resources.”

And while both are extremely important to in-house counsel, the following quote in the article by Gino Benedetti, General Counsel of SEPTA, should give some indication to private practice law firm associates which of the two bears more commercial importance to their in-house clients:

“Associates should understand that every case does not require a full-court press,” said Gino Benedetti, general counsel of SEPTA. “Associates add value when they think creatively by identifying the core issue in dispute and focus their case work on things that impact that issue. Often, associates work on an aspect of the case that does not have any meaningful impact on the ultimate outcome. So, associates should appreciate that their time may be less expensive, but that does not justify inefficiency. Associates should communicate often with the partner or the client directly so that the client’s objective is understood and the work is driven by that objective.”

If you haven’t already, I’d like to suggest you go over and read the entire article. It’s full of sage advice from several in-house GCs.

In the meantime, if you are a private practice law firm associate, the next time your supervising partner asks you to undertake a task on behalf of your client why not ask yourself which type of the two types of efficiency you are going to bring to the task…?

What is the ultimate dead-end job?

On reading the title, how many of you thought:- law?

The title of this post is actually taken from an article in today’s South China Morning Post by Peter Guy – ‘Banking – the ultimate dead-end job‘

The article is a great read and while I would ask you to read Peter’s article in full; if I can, I’d ask you to take in some of the following comments he makes:

Even as a traditional service industry, investment banking used to beckon candidates with a sense of excitement, like you were entering an elite and exclusive club.

Growing interference and lower pay are driving the smartest and most innovative people away from the once-superior banking industry

Today’s deadening layer of bureaucracy is discouraging many new hires from spending more than two or three years in a bank before leaving the industry entirely or seeking positions in hedge funds.

Older, more senior bankers whose careers straddle pre- and post-financial crisis have few career choices and must subjugate themselves to the compliance-led and rules-driven banking culture until retirement.

Alternatively,

who wants to work and lead a dumbed-down organisation?

Acritas’ Sharplegal Survey: Vive La Différence – or you’ll lose work!

The days of the male dominated culture in law firms are numbered if said firms want to have any chance of continuing to win work from the growing number, as well as importance, of female in-house general counsel according to the latest research undertaken by Acritas’ Sharplegal (an annual global legal market survey of over 2,000 general counsel) revealing how differently male and female buyers approach the purchase of legal services.

Bottom-line take out from the covering article – on the Acritas website – announcing the survey result that should get every male law firm partner and their business development team’s thinking caps on is this:

Firms that are able to demonstrate in-depth knowledge of their female client’s business and her needs also stand to gain higher levels of favorability from her – an all-important step on the path to winning work.

This statement is also directly reflective of Lucy Siebert’s (international counsel at Australia’s Telstra) comments at the recent Legal Week Asia regional ‘Corporate Counsel Forum’, held at the end of November 2014, where she stated that:

We [Telstra] specifically look to see that they’re ensuring the best possible talent pool for us – not just white Anglo-Saxon males. We’ve got a very strong diversity policy and so we expect that to be something that is also important to our panel firms.

Crucially, law firms who are looking to win a greater share of work from female in-house counsel should note:

When asked what drove the likelihood to recommend a firm, a much higher proportion of women than men spoke about responsiveness as a deciding factor.

And specifically that:

Not only was it the quality of communication that mattered to female in-house counsel, but also the speed and level of interaction they experienced.

Interestingly, the survey also reports that:

43% of women working in senior in house legal roles said they used LinkedIn on a daily or weekly basis, compared with just a third of men. Furthermore, only a quarter of women said they never used the social network, compared to two fifths of men, suggesting that new business approaches to women may be better made online than ‘on the golf course’.

A final ‘thought for the day’ is the following by Lisa Hart Shepherd, CEO of Acritas [commenting on the survey findings]:

“A change in thinking and culture is needed if men want to impress an increasingly influential group of female in-house counsel who value business understanding and efficient communication over reputation, personal relationships and trust when choosing their preferred legal partner.”

Does your law firm have a ‘Big Ideas Project’

Last week I read about ‘The Big Ideas Project‘, a product of the Progressive Change Institute. I have to admit to being an admirer of projects like The Big Idea Project; but news today that Clifford Chance had appointed Amsterdam managing partner Bas Boris Visser as its first ‘global head of innovation and business change’ got me to thinking:

I wonder how many law firms have adopted a Big Ideas Project to help them decide what innovation and business change they need to be adopting and implementing if they’re to be more client-facing?

And, more specifically,:

If law firms aren’t adopting something like this internally – why not?

A word on the inter-generational issues going on at law firms

When I was growing up, my Grandmother used to tell me that my generation (‘X‘) had never had it so good. Not that we were lazy mind, but that we didn’t have the work ethic of her generation. When I complained one day to my Mother about this treatment she told me that I misunderstood: my Grandmother wasn’t complaining about my slack arse nature, conversely she was pleased that my life was easier than hers had been – she now felt she had succeed in life. I said that I still didn’t understand and my mother told me that she doubted I would until the day I had children of my own. And while I still don’t have children, I do understand this deep need to try and make sure the life of generations to come will be easier than mine and that of my Mother’s (‘Baby Boomers‘).

So it was with interest that I read the recent post on the Australian Lawyer website by NSW Young Lawyers president Thomas Spohr – ‘A dangerous game: How older lawyers diminish their Gen Y colleagues‘ – and the subsequent response by Ken Shepherd, the principal of Shepherd Legal – ‘A dangerous game: A matter of perspective‘.

Both posts are entertaining and raise serious issues and are well worth the reading time. Underlying them both though is a feeling that I’ve had this discussion somewhere before.

Now if you want to read an excellent post on how disenfranchised Millennials (or Gen Y) lawyers must be feeling as they enter the workforce, then you don’t need to go past a post written by Michelle Silverthorn on 17 July 2014 entitled – “My Generation” – which I now consider to be the final word on this issue.

In her post, under the paragraph titled ‘Reframe The Discussion’, Michelle writes:

“I’m often told that Millennial lawyers lack commitment to their employer, that we start looking for another job five minutes after starting a new one. That’s a fair criticism, but look at it from a different angle. Assume that, on average, the youngest Millennial lawyer completed law school at 26. That means that, on average, the youngest Millennial lawyer started practicing in 2007. The majority will be starting their practice in 2014 and later. This entire generation of attorneys will therefore have started working in an utter paradigm shift in the legal market [post 2007]…”

Wow! – given that Australia has a 5 year undergraduate Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) program, that equates to an entire generation (Millennials/Y) of new lawyers in #Auslaw for whom the #NewNormal has been nothing but ‘normal’.

Further, in Australia that’s an entire generation of lawyers who have never experienced a recession but who have operated – in a professional capacity – under circumstances never experienced in living memory.

Quite simply – that’s powerful. And to my shame, I had never even looked at it like this before.

So when Michelle then goes to say:

This entire generation of attorneys will therefore have started working in an utter paradigm shift in the legal market, where traditions have been upended, expectations have proven false, debt seems overwhelming, and jobs simply aren’t there. Not to mention the whirlwind of layoffs, stalled promotions and hiring freezes that started in 2009 and continue today. In other words, when you ask why Millennial lawyers won’t stay committed to an organization, ask yourself what in the past seven years has demonstrated that an organization will stay committed to them?

it makes me realise two things:

First, Michelle is wise beyond her years.

Second, my generation has failed in our duty to the next generation. We haven’t made life any easier for them – desite our bitching and moaning to the contrary – and the only question that now remains is whether or not there is enough time left to fix the problem and restore the equilibrium?

RWS_01

Let’s talk about your law firm’s “collegiate culture”

“Collegiate“:

‘consisting of several colleges or parts’

very formal: ‘sharing ideas and responsibilities with the people you work with, in a friendly way’

– Source: Macmillan Dictionary

Business development professionals, like myself, often talk about the need for businesses to have a “collegiate” culture if the business is to have any real chance of turning a profit. Obviously when we talk about “collegiate” here what we mean is:

“the sharing of ideas and responsibilities with the people you work with in a friendly way”

rather than:

“consisting of several colleges or parts”.

But for business development professionals who operate in the professional services space, the thought of a firm actually having or implementing a “collegiate culture” is more along the lines of a ‘nice to have’, than a reality.

There are lots of reasons why this is so, and to be fair most of them have more to do with the benefits and rewards system that breeds behaviour in law firms than a lack of willingness on the part of any firm to implement this type of culture.

And so it was with great delight that I read earlier this week the CEO of Shoosmiths (Claire Rowe) saying that a collegiate culture was how to keep staff happy and turn a profit.

Imagine, the nirvana of happy staff and making a profit.

Actually, where:

“We have a transparent and open environment, there are no secrets. We have very honest conversations with our people to set our plans. Our staff enjoy a set-up which means they can achieve their personal objectives in a supportive way”

it really isn’t that hard to imagine.

It also shouldn’t be that difficult to implement such an environment.

So it was with equal disappointment that I read the following day, on the same website, how DWF were to “take account of non-billable work in [their] new appraisal model” (my bold for emphasis).

I’m not sure if the management/HR team at DWF are aware quite how polar opposite their publicly stated approach is to that of Shoosmiths. And to be fair to the management of DWF, they may not have been aware when talking to the publisher of the website that the Shoosmiths story was going to be published the day before.

Regardless, the message to young lawyers is clear: At Shoosmiths we believe in transparent and open environment with personal respect; whereas at DWF if you are not billing, we will give you credit for whatever it is you have done, but we are not overly happy about the whole situation!

And it is worth noting that, from an #Auslaw perspective, it is not only the young lawyers who get this message. As far back as September 2010, Bob Santamaria – ANZ Bank General Counsel – stated in the Australian newspaper that:

“Law firms now are being run more as businesses and for profit, and that is affecting lawyers, good and bad”

going on to say:

“There will be very, very good lawyers who are jaundiced by some of that approach that is applying in the big firms.”

In other words, if you can get the foundations of your culture right – and preferably making this a collegiate culture – you are some way to attracting some of the best talent around and, hopefully by extension, some of the best clients.

I happen to agree with Bob Santamaria. Indeed, I will go one step further:

If you can get a collegiate culture going in your firm that has values aligned with those of your client, you will almost certainly be as happy and profitable as Shoosmiths.

So how collegiate is the culture in your law firm?

RWS_01

ps – if you are interested in what a firm’s values might look if they were selected by their client, Cordell Parvin’s “If Your Clients Could Choose Your Law Firm’s Vision and Core Values” is a good starting point